Tile problem with nethack.exe
Erik Piper
I'm using nethack.exe on WinXP Pro. I've been using nethackw.exe, but
wanted to see if I could warm up to pure ANSI. Well, maybe I could,
but I'm getting the following problem:
only the upper and lower walls of rooms and occasionally a corner tile
are showing. The remaining wall tiles are blank. It's really, really
confusing to work with. So for the moment, I'm for all practical
purposes restricted to nethackw.exe.
Any tips?
Erik
P.S. Yes, I know plaintext e-mail is silly. I don't know how to
connect to a free news server, nor how to use Google Groups with an
invalid address. I pray to Bayes every day.
5parrow
> Hello all,
>
> I'm using nethack.exe on WinXP Pro. I've been using nethackw.exe, but
> wanted to see if I could warm up to pure ANSI. Well, maybe I could,
> but I'm getting the following problem:
>
> only the upper and lower walls of rooms and occasionally a corner tile
> are showing. The remaining wall tiles are blank. It's really, really
> confusing to work with. So for the moment, I'm for all practical
> purposes restricted to nethackw.exe.
>
> Any tips?
Try turning the IBMgraphics option off.
And here's a tip for Google Groups - get yourself one of those free
webmail accounts from Yahoo or whatever, and use it to register with
Google. Check there once a week or so and empty out all the spam.
--
- 5parrowhawk (to email, please rearrange for the mail server at
Georgia Institute of Technology).
() ascii ribbon campaign | what "yaoi" really
/\ - against html e-mail | stands for:
- against M$ attachments | "yamete, oshiri itai".
Ray Chason
> Hello all,
>
> I'm using nethack.exe on WinXP Pro. I've been using nethackw.exe, but
> wanted to see if I could warm up to pure ANSI. Well, maybe I could,
> but I'm getting the following problem:
>
> only the upper and lower walls of rooms and occasionally a corner tile
> are showing. The remaining wall tiles are blank. It's really, really
> confusing to work with. So for the moment, I'm for all practical
> purposes restricted to nethackw.exe.
Looks like bug W343-3 (see http://www.nethack.org/v343/bugs.html for more
details). This has been reported with Win2K in Russian and Polish, and as
you're posting with a .cz address I suppose we can add WinXP in Czech to
that list.
The report for Polish appears as
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=brmika%249rq%241%40news.onet.pl
It has some links to screenshots -- maybe you can say if this is the same
problem you see.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
This message was stage-managed by IBM. So say Darl McBride and SCO.
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
Erik Piper
> Erik Piper wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I'm using nethack.exe on WinXP Pro. I've been using nethackw.exe, but
> > wanted to see if I could warm up to pure ANSI. Well, maybe I could,
> > but I'm getting the following problem:
> >
> > only the upper and lower walls of rooms and occasionally a corner tile
> > are showing. The remaining wall tiles are blank. It's really, really
> > confusing to work with. So for the moment, I'm for all practical
> > purposes restricted to nethackw.exe.
>
> Looks like bug W343-3 (see http://www.nethack.org/v343/bugs.html for more
> details). This has been reported with Win2K in Russian and Polish, and as
> you're posting with a .cz address I suppose we can add WinXP in Czech to
> that list.
>
> The report for Polish appears as
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=brmika%249rq%241%40news.onet.pl
> It has some links to screenshots -- maybe you can say if this is the same
> problem you see.
Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, the Polish screenshots show a
significantly different distortion -- both the floor tiles and certain
wall tiles are damaged, and (far more importantly) they are both
damaged in the same way. Aww heck, let's just say it this way:
Y++++++++
YYYYYYYYY
YYYYYYYYo
YYYYYYYYY
+++++++++
is, roughly, the Polish bug. My bug is roughly:
++++++++
.......
.......o
.......
+++++++++
where + is a wall, Y is a damaged character, shared by walls and
floors in the Polish bug, . is floor, [space] is what I'm seeing
instead of the damaged walls, and o is door just for decoration.
I'm running WinXP ENG, so the references to code pages in the bug
description lead me to believe I probably won't be suffering from a
variant of the Polish bug. I am physically in the CR, however. I get
exactly the same problem on a Win2k CZ machine.
IBMGraphics works just fine in the non-graphical nethackw.exe modes!
Erik
Erik Piper
[reply refering to a Polish bug intriguingly similar to the bug I
described in my original post]
Sorry to double post, but just need to mention one more detail:
switching off IBMgraphics does indeed get the walls to display
correctly. The game looks ugly as sin after that, though.
Erik
Mariusz Wojsyk
Uzytkownik "Erik Piper" <er...@sky.cz> napisal w wiadomosci
news:c605db35.04052...@posting.google.com...
The original post was be me. With help of Michael Lehotay I finally managed
to work this out and made a patch that fixes this problem.
If you want I can send you the diff file or recompiled exe.
BR
Mariusz Wojsyk
--
"My software never has bugs. It just develops random features."
Erik Piper
Hi Marius,
Recompiled exe is better, as i have no compiling experience, and
probably no talent as well. ;-)
Hard to say if it will help, but no harm in trying. Thanks a lot!
Erik
Daniel Zinsli
> I'm using nethack.exe on WinXP Pro. I've been using nethackw.exe, but
> wanted to see if I could warm up to pure ANSI. Well, maybe I could,
> but I'm getting the following problem:
You can play nethackw with ascii, see the menu on the top. Not sure if
that's what you want, but it works for me :)
> P.S. Yes, I know plaintext e-mail is silly.
What? Anything BUT plaintext is silly, IMHO.
--
Daniel Zinsli
Oslo, Norway
Boudewijn Waijers
> er...@sky.cz (Erik Piper) writes:
>> P.S. Yes, I know plaintext e-mail is silly.
> What? Anything BUT plaintext is silly, IMHO.
In his original post, I cannot see the PS you're "quoting".
But as far as your comment goes, you're correct. All e-mail and posts
should be in plain text, obviously without embedded pictures and other
anomalies like backgrounds. Any and all other things but plain text should
be an attachment.
--
Boudewijn Waijers (kroisos at home.nl).
"No-one is smart enough to grasp his own stupidity."
-- Theo Maassen, Dutch comedian.
Seraphim
> Daniel Zinsli wrote:
>> er...@sky.cz (Erik Piper) writes:
>
>>> P.S. Yes, I know plaintext e-mail is silly.
>
>> What? Anything BUT plaintext is silly, IMHO.
>
> In his original post, I cannot see the PS you're "quoting".
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c605db35.0405180246.ff62fc3%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
That's odd, because it's clearly there.
Erik Piper
> er...@sky.cz (Erik Piper) writes:
>
> > I'm using nethack.exe on WinXP Pro. I've been using nethackw.exe,
> > but wanted to see if I could warm up to pure ANSI. Well, maybe I
> > could, but I'm getting the following problem:
>
> You can play nethackw with ascii, see the menu on the top. Not sure if
> that's what you want, but it works for me :)
>
I'm quite aware of that (and it's what I am in fact using for the
moment, even though Mariusz has kindly sent a patch which may resolve
the problem for nethack.exe). I was just curious to see if I could be
converted to a purely non-GUI UI. (Ooo yummy, a non-gooey ooey!)
> > P.S. Yes, I know plaintext e-mail is silly.
>
> What? Anything BUT plaintext is silly, IMHO.
I should have stated this more precisely -- plaintext e-mail *address*.
As for plaintext *e-mail* -- I am one of those horrible people who
thinks that there are situations where non-plaintext e-mail is useful.
(*ducks*)
Erik
Richard Bos
> bork bork bork Daniel Zinsli bork 3:59:36 PM bork 5/27/2004 bork bork:
>
> > er...@sky.cz (Erik Piper) writes:
> >
> > > P.S. Yes, I know plaintext e-mail is silly.
> >
> > What? Anything BUT plaintext is silly, IMHO.
>
> I should have stated this more precisely -- plaintext e-mail *address*.
Erm... you want an HTML or GIF e-mail address? How?
> As for plaintext *e-mail* -- I am one of those horrible people who
> thinks that there are situations where non-plaintext e-mail is useful.
Attachments are certainly useful in soem situations. HTML e-mail rarely,
if ever, is - I've never seen one. Though authors of newsletters seem to
think that their epistles gain a lot by being strewn with <p>s and
<blink>s, I disagree - and getting a newsletter only to find out that it
wants to reconnect to the 'net because its graphics aren't embedded but
stored somewhere on the web only means that I get to see an ugly,
ill-designed, graphic-less newsletter.
As for newsgroup posts, non-plaintext newsgroup posts are _never_
useful, not even in alt.binaries.
Richard
Erik Piper
> "Erik Piper" <efrn...@sdky.cz> wrote:
>
> > bork bork bork Daniel Zinsli bork 3:59:36 PM bork 5/27/2004 bork
> > bork:
> >
> > > er...@sky.cz (Erik Piper) writes:
> > >
> > > > P.S. Yes, I know plaintext e-mail is silly.
> > >
> > > What? Anything BUT plaintext is silly, IMHO.
> >
> > I should have stated this more precisely -- plaintext e-mail
> > address.
>
> Erm... you want an HTML or GIF e-mail address? How?
>
Excuse me; cleartext. Not scrambled. Spammable.
> > As for plaintext *e-mail* -- I am one of those horrible people who
> > thinks that there are situations where non-plaintext e-mail is
> > useful.
>
> Attachments are certainly useful in soem situations. HTML e-mail
> rarely, if ever, is - I've never seen one.
A) You're a software technical support person, as I am. In-line
illustration of what you are trying to say is vastly more useful than
attachments.
B) Similar to A, except it's you and your Aunt Tilly.
C) You are discussing products with your business partners or
colleagues within your business, and a situation arrives where in-line
graphics are a vastly better illustration than attachments. I encounter
this all the time in e-mail discussions at work.
I'm sure with more time I could think of other examples.
> Though authors of newsletters...
Don't confuse "HTML e-mail" with "the abuse of HTML e-mail by
e-marketers and spammers." E-mail as a whole is certainly also abused
by both, and I doubt you'd argue that e-mail as a whole has no use.
> As for newsgroup posts,
...which I didn't mention....
Erik
Richard Bos
> bork bork bork Richard Bos bork 1:15:26 PM bork 5/31/2004 bork bork:
>
> > "Erik Piper" <efrn...@sdky.cz> wrote:
> >
> > > bork bork bork Daniel Zinsli bork 3:59:36 PM bork 5/27/2004 bork
> > > bork:
> > >
> > > > er...@sky.cz (Erik Piper) writes:
> > > >
> > > > > P.S. Yes, I know plaintext e-mail is silly.
> > > >
> > > > What? Anything BUT plaintext is silly, IMHO.
> > >
> > > I should have stated this more precisely -- plaintext e-mail
> > > address.
> >
> > Erm... you want an HTML or GIF e-mail address? How?
> >
> Excuse me; cleartext. Not scrambled. Spammable.
Unmunged e-mail addresses are the only _valid_ From: fields, in fact.
Not silly at all; the only acceptable option to a true Usenetter. By
scrambling your e-mail, you would be in violation of the RFC's. If you
_must_ hide your e-mail, put a _guaranteed_ invalid address (i.e., one
ending in .invalid, not a munged one which might belong to someone else
and definitely creates more work for the DNSes) in the From: field,
_and_ put a _valid_ address in the Reply-To:. One of those must, I
repeat _must_ be valid.
> > > As for plaintext *e-mail* -- I am one of those horrible people who
> > > thinks that there are situations where non-plaintext e-mail is
> > > useful.
> >
> > Attachments are certainly useful in soem situations. HTML e-mail
> > rarely, if ever, is - I've never seen one.
>
> A) You're a software technical support person, as I am. In-line
> illustration of what you are trying to say is vastly more useful than
> attachments.
I _am_ in fact a tech-support person, albeit not specifically software.
In my job, I have never found it useful to resort to HTML e-mail.
> B) Similar to A, except it's you and your Aunt Tilly.
>
> C) You are discussing products with your business partners or
> colleagues within your business, and a situation arrives where in-line
> graphics are a vastly better illustration than attachments. I encounter
> this all the time in e-mail discussions at work.
>
> I'm sure with more time I could think of other examples.
You could, but they'd have to be better if you want to convince me. If
it's graphical enough that presentation matters, HTML isn't good enough.
You need something better than that, perhaps PDF. If HTML _is_ good
enough, then IME so is plain text.
> > Though authors of newsletters...
>
> Don't confuse "HTML e-mail" with "the abuse of HTML e-mail by
> e-marketers and spammers."
Don't confuse me with a luser. I said "authors of newsletters", not
"marketeers and spammers". If you think the two are identical, you can't
have been around the 'net much.
> > As for newsgroup posts,
>
> ...which I didn't mention....
Nope, but you posted this in a newsgroup.
Richard
Chaos Master
> Unmunged e-mail addresses are the only _valid_ From: fields, in fact.
> Not silly at all; the only acceptable option to a true Usenetter. By
> scrambling your e-mail, you would be in violation of the RFC's. If you
> _must_ hide your e-mail, put a _guaranteed_ invalid address (i.e., one
> ending in .invalid, not a munged one which might belong to someone else
> and definitely creates more work for the DNSes) in the From: field,
> _and_ put a _valid_ address in the Reply-To:. One of those must, I
> repeat _must_ be valid.
I am unable to use a munged address (news.individual.net refuses to accept it,
the domain name must resolve to a IP address) so I created a "black hole"
account for news and use it for my address.
[]s
--
© 2004 Chaos Master | "I'm going under,
Posting from Brazil! | drowning in you
Win 98 + LiteStep | I'm falling forever,
Slackware Linux 9.1 | I've got to break through"
---------------------. -- Evanescence, "Going Under"
Erik Piper
> "Erik Piper" <efrn...@sdky.cz> wrote:
>
> > bork bork bork Richard Bos bork 1:15:26 PM bork 5/31/2004 bork bork:
> >
> > > "Erik Piper" <efrn...@sdky.cz> wrote:
> > >
> > > > bork bork bork Daniel Zinsli bork 3:59:36 PM bork 5/27/2004 bork
> > > > bork:
> > > >
> > > > > er...@sky.cz (Erik Piper) writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > P.S. Yes, I know plaintext e-mail is silly.
> > > > >
> > > > > What? Anything BUT plaintext is silly, IMHO.
> > > >
> > > > I should have stated this more precisely -- plaintext e-mail
> > > > address.
> > >
> > > Erm... you want an HTML or GIF e-mail address? How?
> > >
> > Excuse me; cleartext. Not scrambled. Spammable.
>
> Unmunged e-mail addresses are the only valid From: fields, in fact.
> Not silly at all; the only acceptable option to a true Usenetter. By
> scrambling your e-mail, you would be in violation of the RFC's. If you
> _must_ hide your e-mail, put a guaranteed invalid address (i.e., one
> ending in .invalid, not a munged one which might belong to someone
> else and definitely creates more work for the DNSes) in the From:
> field, _and_ put a valid address in the Reply-To:. One of those must,
> I repeat must be valid.
>
> > > > As for plaintext *e-mail* -- I am one of those horrible people
> > > > who thinks that there are situations where non-plaintext e-mail
> > > > is useful.
> > >
> > > Attachments are certainly useful in soem situations. HTML e-mail
> > > rarely, if ever, is - I've never seen one.
> >
> > A) You're a software technical support person, as I am. In-line
> > illustration of what you are trying to say is vastly more useful
> > than attachments.
>
> I am in fact a tech-support person, albeit not specifically software.
> In my job, I have never found it useful to resort to HTML e-mail.
Would you care to elaborate?
I'll try to be so polite as to elaborate myself. A picture is worth a
thousand words, especially for someone who is obviously "drowning" in
your topic anyway. Even ignoring the techical barriers to opening an
attachment, there is the breaking of one's attention by requiring them
to shift their eyes back and forth from the attachment to your text.
Many people -- the ones you sadly call "lusers" -- have trouble working
with multiple programs at once, and a suggestion like "just vertically
tile the windows" won't cut it... and even if it did, it's STILL an
interference to reading the text. Also, many illustrations are too
small to really justify an attachment, but still worthwhile as an
inline graphic:
"Activate the foo tool [tiny button illustration] and frame the bar
object [shrunken-screenshot illustration]"... if the customer asking
for my support sends me an HTML e-mail, I'm thrilled to be able to
write that instead of plain text. And you can bet your booty I won't be
pointing them to attachments as illustrations... except as an
illustration that is useful to view AFTER the whole e-mail has been
read.
>
> > B) Similar to A, except it's you and your Aunt Tilly.
> >
> > C) You are discussing products with your business partners or
> > colleagues within your business, and a situation arrives where
> > in-line graphics are a vastly better illustration than attachments.
> > I encounter this all the time in e-mail discussions at work.
> >
> > I'm sure with more time I could think of other examples.
>
> You could, but they'd have to be better if you want to convince me.
Define "better" and perhaps I will try, though I'm not convinced --
pardon the strong words -- that the problem is in a lack of arguments,
but in the overused Slashdottish anti-HTML-mail cliche.
> If
> it's graphical enough that presentation matters, HTML isn't good
> enough.
Ummm... what?
> You need something better than that, perhaps PDF. If HTML is
> good enough, then IME so is plain text.
>
Ummm... what?
Forgive me for losing my composure here, but it's hard not to.
> > > Though authors of newsletters...
> >
> > Don't confuse "HTML e-mail" with "the abuse of HTML e-mail by
> > e-marketers and spammers."
>
> Don't confuse me with a luser. I said "authors of newsletters", not
> "marketeers and spammers". If you think the two are identical, you
> can't have been around the 'net much.
Considering that the most notorious abusers of HTML e-mail in
newsletters are marketeers and spammers, I don't think it was a large
jump to the latter. And I must confess that I personally would evaluate
the use of HTML in non-marketeering newsletters on a case-by-case
basis, not through a blanket statement.
Please don't be rude.
>
> > > As for newsgroup posts,
> >
> > ...which I didn't mention....
>
> Nope, but you posted this in a newsgroup.
>
...without mentioning newsgroup posts.
> Richard
Erik
Boudewijn Waijers
> bork bork bork Richard Bos bork 10:28:54 PM bork 6/1/2004 bork bork:
> Many people -- the ones you sadly call "lusers" -- have trouble [...]
In the text you're quoting, he only calls himself "luser" somewhere. As in
"don't confuse me with a luser".
> And you can bet your booty I won't
> be pointing them to attachments as illustrations... except as an
> illustration that is useful to view AFTER the whole e-mail has been
> read.
Of course. You shouldn't put illustrations *only* as several attachments,
but you should make *one* attachment, containing both text (in whatever
form), interspersed with any illustrations that might be helpful.
But these should *not* appear in the enveloping e-mail itself. E-mail
should be plain text only, if only because not all mail readers can
display it (since the standard dictates otherwise).
If you really feel like it, that one attachment could be in HTML-form, but
there are many better formats for text-image combinations. PDF comes to
mind immediately.
> Define "better" and perhaps I will try, though I'm not convinced --
> pardon the strong words -- that the problem is in a lack of arguments,
> but in the overused Slashdottish anti-HTML-mail cliche.
I don't think Slashdotters (whatever they are) are anti-HTML. HTML is
quite accepted by both computer nerds, crackers, and people considered
normal by the majority. They may be anti-Microsoft, granted, and it was
Microsoft that first introduced HTML in e-mail, against all standards.
Standards are there for a reason, mainly to ensure compatibility between
clients. Microsoft always deliberately deviates a little bit from
standards, in order to put other sortware products at a disadvantage.
Since most people will use their software anyway, others are forced to do
so as well, since their own product suddenly can't read the new and
improved Microsoft output.
Richard Bos
> bork bork bork Richard Bos bork 10:28:54 PM bork 6/1/2004 bork bork:
>
> > "Erik Piper" <efrn...@sdky.cz> wrote:
> >
> > > bork bork bork Richard Bos bork 1:15:26 PM bork 5/31/2004 bork bork:
> > >
> > > > Attachments are certainly useful in soem situations. HTML e-mail
> > > > rarely, if ever, is - I've never seen one.
> > >
> > > A) You're a software technical support person, as I am. In-line
> > > illustration of what you are trying to say is vastly more useful
> > > than attachments.
> >
> > I am in fact a tech-support person, albeit not specifically software.
> > In my job, I have never found it useful to resort to HTML e-mail.
>
> Would you care to elaborate?
How can I? I have simply not found it useful. _Had_ I found it useful, I
could certainly give you examples of where I did, but since I do _not_
find it useful, well, I can hardly give you examples of where HTML did
not provide me with a useful post, can I?
> I'll try to be so polite as to elaborate myself. A picture is worth a
> thousand words, especially for someone who is obviously "drowning" in
> your topic anyway. Even ignoring the techical barriers to opening an
> attachment, there is the breaking of one's attention by requiring them
> to shift their eyes back and forth from the attachment to your text.
I've never needed to provide such an e-mail.
> Also, many illustrations are too small to really justify an attachment,
> but still worthwhile as an inline graphic:
Heh? Surely the same graphic, as an attachment, takes up exactly as much
space in the e-mail, and is exactly as much trouble to insert, as the
same graphic in an HTML mail?
> > > B) Similar to A, except it's you and your Aunt Tilly.
> > >
> > > C) You are discussing products with your business partners or
> > > colleagues within your business, and a situation arrives where
> > > in-line graphics are a vastly better illustration than attachments.
> > > I encounter this all the time in e-mail discussions at work.
> > >
> > > I'm sure with more time I could think of other examples.
> >
> > You could, but they'd have to be better if you want to convince me.
>
> Define "better" and perhaps I will try, though I'm not convinced --
> pardon the strong words -- that the problem is in a lack of arguments,
> but in the overused Slashdottish anti-HTML-mail cliche.
I do not read Slashdot, and I can make up my own mind. The examples
above simply do not convince me that HTML mail is useful except for
trivial uses.
I would _never_ rely on an HTML mail presenting my case properly to a
business partner; there is just too much that can go horribly wrong. For
Aunt Tilly HTML mail might be good enough, but I have no aunts called
Tilly, and even if I had, I wouldn't be providing them with tech support
through e-mail.
> > If it's graphical enough that presentation matters, HTML isn't good
> > enough.
>
> Ummm... what?
If presentation matters, HTML is not - is never, and certainly not in
e-mail - good enough. HTML is a mark-up language, not a make-up
language. The sender may think he knows what he's written, but he
doesn't know what the receiver sees. You don't know that the other party
doesn't lack the fonts you so meticulously specified; that he doesn't
have his window set much smaller or larger than you do, putting
everything in different places; that he doesn't have his JavaScript and
CSS turned off. In short, you do not know even approximately how your
HTML will be rendered on the receiving end.
> > You need something better than that, perhaps PDF. If HTML is
> > good enough, then IME so is plain text.
> >
> Ummm... what?
If you need to be able to guarantee that "the figure on page three"
really does appear on page three, or that text in Verdana really is
shown in Verdana, then HTML is simply not good enough, and you need
something which is better suited for graphical presentations. PDF is
just one example of such a format; there are, obviously, others. If
"that graphic over there" is clear enough, then so is "the graphic
called wotsit.jpg".
> > > > Though authors of newsletters...
> > >
> > > Don't confuse "HTML e-mail" with "the abuse of HTML e-mail by
> > > e-marketers and spammers."
> >
> > Don't confuse me with a luser. I said "authors of newsletters", not
> > "marketeers and spammers". If you think the two are identical, you
> > can't have been around the 'net much.
>
> Considering that the most notorious abusers of HTML e-mail in
> newsletters are marketeers and spammers, I don't think it was a large
> jump to the latter.
I do think it was; when I write "newsletter", I mean "newsletter", not
"advertising run". There _is_ a difference, you know. And IMO, asked-for
newsletter authors can be just as technically clueless as spammers, even
though they're not the social outcasts that the latter are.
> Please don't be rude.
You started it, by assuming I would be stupid enough to confuse HTML
e-mail and/or newsletters with spammers.
> > > > As for newsgroup posts,
> > >
> > > ...which I didn't mention....
> >
> > Nope, but you posted this in a newsgroup.
> >
> ...without mentioning newsgroup posts.
Sure, but your original phrasing was confusing.
Richard
Jim Crawford
> Erik Piper wrote:
> > bork bork bork Richard Bos bork 10:28:54 PM bork 6/1/2004 bork bork:
>
> > Many people -- the ones you sadly call "lusers" -- have trouble [...]
>
> In the text you're quoting, he only calls himself "luser" somewhere. As in
> "don't confuse me with a luser".
This is him saying that he's *not* a luser. That he calls people
lusers is inferred from his using the term at all.
> > And you can bet your booty I won't
> > be pointing them to attachments as illustrations... except as an
> > illustration that is useful to view AFTER the whole e-mail has been
> > read.
[snip]
> But these should *not* appear in the enveloping e-mail itself. E-mail
> should be plain text only, if only because not all mail readers can
> display it (since the standard dictates otherwise).
Erik was specifically discussing the situation where the person he was
conversing with had already sent him HTML mail (probably in a gigantic
purple font, too), so it would be safe.
> If you really feel like it, that one attachment could be in HTML-form, but
> there are many better formats for text-image combinations. PDF comes to
> mind immediately.
For something as simple as embedding small illustrative images in
text, HTML is perfectly servicable. PDF is *far* too heavyweight for
that sort of thing.
> > Define "better" and perhaps I will try, though I'm not convinced --
> > pardon the strong words -- that the problem is in a lack of arguments,
> > but in the overused Slashdottish anti-HTML-mail cliche.
>
> I don't think Slashdotters (whatever they are) are anti-HTML. HTML is
> quite accepted by both computer nerds, crackers, and people considered
> normal by the majority.
Anti-HTML-*mail*, he said.
> They may be anti-Microsoft, granted, and it was
> Microsoft that first introduced HTML in e-mail, against all standards.
I'm with you here, I fall under both the anti-Microsoft and
anti-HTML-mail categories myself. But I can't deny the usefulness of
HTML mail that Erik describes.
--
Jim Crawford
pfis...@mindspring.com
http://www.goombas.org/
Jim Crawford
> "Erik Piper" <efrn...@sdky.cz> wrote:
> > Also, many illustrations are too small to really justify an attachment,
> > but still worthwhile as an inline graphic:
>
> Heh? Surely the same graphic, as an attachment, takes up exactly as much
> space in the e-mail, and is exactly as much trouble to insert, as the
> same graphic in an HTML mail?
I'm certain he meant small in terms of screen space. As in: "click on
the 'options' icon [icon pictured here]", as opposed to "click on the
'options' icon (as pictured in the attached file options_icon.png)"
And I think this is the gist of Erik's argument, that HTML mail is
better at "text with images" than both email with attached images
(because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of having to open the documents
separately) and PDF (because PDF is far more resource-intensive).
Erik Piper
bork:
> Erik Piper wrote:
> > bork bork bork Richard Bos bork 10:28:54 PM bork 6/1/2004 bork bork:
>
> > Many people -- the ones you sadly call "lusers" -- have trouble
> > [...]
>
> In the text you're quoting, he only calls himself "luser" somewhere.
> As in "don't confuse me with a luser".
>
> > And you can bet your booty I won't
> > be pointing them to attachments as illustrations... except as an
> > illustration that is useful to view AFTER the whole e-mail has been
> > read.
>
> Of course. You shouldn't put illustrations only as several
> attachments, but you should make one attachment, containing both text
> (in whatever form), interspersed with any illustrations that might be
> helpful.
>
> But these should not appear in the enveloping e-mail itself. E-mail
> should be plain text only, if only because not all mail readers can
> display it (since the standard dictates otherwise).
>
> If you really feel like it, that one attachment could be in
> HTML-form, but there are many better formats for text-image
> combinations. PDF comes to mind immediately.
>
> > Define "better" and perhaps I will try, though I'm not convinced --
> > pardon the strong words -- that the problem is in a lack of
> > arguments, but in the overused Slashdottish anti-HTML-mail cliche.
>
> I don't think Slashdotters (whatever they are) are anti-HTML. HTML is
> quite accepted by both computer nerds, crackers, and people considered
> normal by the majority. They may be anti-Microsoft, granted, and it
> was Microsoft that first introduced HTML in e-mail, against all
> standards.
>
> Standards are there for a reason, mainly to ensure compatibility
> between clients. Microsoft always deliberately deviates a little bit
> from standards, in order to put other sortware products at a
> disadvantage. Since most people will use their software anyway,
> others are forced to do so as well, since their own product suddenly
> can't read the new and improved Microsoft output.
I'm going to let this one die, not because I wouldn't argue with the
points you mention, but because there are only 24 hours in a day, and
there are far more fascinating threads to read and perhaps even
contribute to. Thanks for your thoughts.
Erik
Erik Piper
CAN'T STOP.... MYSELF... MUST... POST... IN.... THREEEEAAD...
If I'm writing to Aunt Tilley, then only in the last 2-3 years would I
even CONSIDER sending her a .png ;-)
As for PDF... there is always the small chance that the interlocuter
(?) does not have Acrobat. Yes, it can be downloaded for free. But it's
a barrier. Anyway, to achieve the goal of in-line illustration, the
whole mail would have to be in the PDF, which, while it really presents
no great pain in the ass for the reader or for me, just feels...
strange.
Erik
Boudewijn Waijers
> I'm going to let this one die, not because I wouldn't argue with the
> points you mention, but because there are only 24 hours in a day, and
> there are far more fascinating threads to read and perhaps even
> contribute to. Thanks for your thoughts.
You're right. Someone has to end this nonsense. :-)
By the way, I tried to send this by e-mail, but you munged your reply
address in such a way that I was unable to deduce your real address.
It's become more or less accepted to mangle your reply address to limit
spamming, but it's considered good form to at least give a hint as to
what's your real e-mail address, so people may reply to you in person
instead of using the newsgroup...
Boudewijn Waijers (bwaijers at home.nl).
"Your average smart bomb is more intelligent than Mr. Bush."
- Xavier Guzman, Dutch stand-up comedian, on Dutch radio.